It doesn't say, the right of the militia to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. It says the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. The SCOUTS Addressed it, and Affirmed it. The End.
Reading comprehension problems? Maybe you should read it again. Then you can learn what a strawman is. Since when does a strawman address the actual subject of the argument?
YOU said You are the only one insinuating that it does. In any case, it's obvious that you have nothing to counter the arguments I gave in this thread. So don't bother.... As for the rest, the linguistic and historical arguments used in Heller have been addressed by ALL the linguists and historians who are experts on the matters mentioned in Heller. And they unanimously concluded that Scalia's arguments are wrong. Who knows... maybe there are other arguments that make Scalia's conclusion right. But THOSE particular arguments were wrong. And even though this thread addresses ONE of them, the topic is not Heller. It's only this ONE argument that Scalia got wrong. And on each of the other threads (English 101, English 102, and History 102) ONE other argument that Scalia just happened to get wrong.
Not sure where you could possibly come up with that but when I say IT DOESN'T, that doesn't mean I said it does. Meaning the 2nd amendment was talking about the people, not the militia when it confirmed the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. It doesn't matter what your experts and linguist and historical arguments claim. They don't sit on the SCOTUS. Just because you found someone who disagrees, it doesn't automatically make them right. It just means they have a different opinion. An opinion that has no legal value what so ever. The have no power to overturn the SCOTUS and they are not elected representatives of the people. They are just people with a different opinion with no legal value. So the Heller decision stands and the Constitution guarantees the right for individuals to keep and bear arms.
From your post! I just quoted it for the third time! And it has the links to your original. Anyway..... it doesn't actually matter. Because nothing that you said there addresses any of the points I made on the OP.
I check in once in a while to see if false premises is still the order of the day for the OP. I see it is. Thought I’d link to one of the false premises being debunked again just for those new to these threads. http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?posts/1072518284/
Given the historical context and plain language of the Second Amendment, it's much more likely that the Second Amendment was written to protect slavery than the use of guns for personal self-defense. Slave rebellions undermined state security (something that the amendment actually says something about) and the militia could be used to suppress such rebellions. In contrast, the amendment says nothing at all about personal self defense.
no serious legal scholar supports that crap. at a lecture on the Constitution to the alumni at SSS Hall, Yale university, (the saturday of labor day weekend, 2016) I specifically posed that question to Sterling Professor of Law, Akhil Reed Amar, and he noted that Bogus (the third rate law professor that came up with that crap-BTW Bogus is on the board of a leading anti gun organization) theory has no support and some of the most pro second amendment states at the time, were also hotbeds of abolition such as NY Is there anyone on earth with an IQ over 75 who thinks that the founders believed the federal government was going to disarm the pro slavery states when the bill of rights was written?
From his faculty web page: "Professor Bogus is especially well known for his thesis that James Madison drafted the Second Amendment to assure his constituents in Virginia and the South generally that the federal government could not disarm the state militia, on which the South relied for slave control, as set forth in his article 'The Hidden History of the Second Amendment' published by U.C. Davis Law Review." https://law.rwu.edu/faculty/carl-t-bogus It sounds like the article is an interesting read. It probably makes more sense than Heller (one of the most bizarre pieces of text I've read in my life).
I read the article. Bogus makes an interesting comparison between the Second Amendment and the right to have in arms in the English Declaration of Rights. He says they both transferred power from one branch of government to another: "In 1689, Parliament needed to address the fear that Protestants might be disarmed and left defenseless against Catholics. In 1789, Madison needed to allay the fear that the militia might be disarmed, leaving whites defenseless against blacks. Madison followed Parliaments solution. Both the Declaration and the Second Amendment resolve the problem by transferring the power to disarm the favored group (Protestants and the militia) from the distrusted arm of government (the Crown and Congress) to a more trusted authority (Parliament and the states)." The militia had already been proven to be ineffective against a professional standing army during the war to gain independence. So what purpose would the militia serve? In the South, the clear answer was that it woud be a protection against slave rebellions. Slave owners like Patrick Henry feared what could happen if the federal government failed to arm the militia and the states were not authorized by the Constitution to do so. The Second Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights in reponse to such concerns.
So you see a pattern here? Groups of people in society don't want to be left defenseless against things that could be potential threats. They don't want to have to rely on the central government to protect them. The individual states, and even the people a little bit, have to have some responsibility.
Personally, I don't give a damn if the Constitution says I can have guns or not, or what the forefathers intended. With the government we have in place, and the quality of our leadership the last few election cycles, I'll be damned if I'll ever give up my guns. These days it is the only real insurance policy against tyranny. I don't trust any democrat or republican to keep this nation free. We have to maintain that **** through force of arms. As long as 300,000,000+ guns remain in the hands of American citizens, we will remain free. Of course, that is why they keep us divided and at eachothers throats. I think all those guns makes them nervous, and they can get away with more if we are pointing them at eachother instead of at them.
To boil this all down, you clearly do not understand the framers, or the era itself. No nations at that time really had a large standing army. About the only exception were the colonial powers, where they used it to keep order in their colonies and to protect them from foreign attack. All the others tended to keep a small standing "Professional Army", to train and lead the militias if they were needed. And the militia was everybody. Showing that every single male who had not lost their right to bear arms (criminals) or could reasonably refuse carrying them (medical and clergy) were expected to not only own a weapon, but also such kit as needed to take to the field, as well as the training and knowledge on how to use them. Interesting that you bring up the "Anti-Federalists", and imply that they were dismissed. You are aware that the biggest argument between the two sides was if a Bill of Rights was needed, right? The very fact that we have one shows that their concerns were not dismissed at all, but actually incorporated into the Constitution itself. And of course Noah ridiculed the Anti-Federalist position, he was a Federalist and wrote hundreds of articles in favor of them. And believed that the Constitution itself was enough, and that the Bill of Rights were not needed at all. So if you are taking that stance and argument, then you need to also throw out all of the other first 10 amendments. Because if you insist the second was not needed, then the other 9 were not needed according to this argument. But we did indeed have a standing army. Just not a large one. The speed of travel and communication of that era helped to ensure that no invasion would get very far before resistance could be raised against it. This alone is why one was not needed, but a small core army to expand around it was.
To be more accurate, it is simply archaic. Kind of like the Third Amendment, of critical importance to the writers, but now one of the strangest of all of them. But it has to be remembered, that the writers had all lived and most had served during the Revolution. Where by far the majority of those fighting were the militia. They saw it as the duty of every individual to stand up at time of need, and that the government had no right to interfere with gun ownership of individuals. Which was one of the things that started the Revolution in the US. And ironically, also the Texas Revolution. Where even in towns and areas under constant Indian attacks, the Mexican government tried to outlaw individual gun ownership. And send the Army in to take guns from the citizens.
Dumb introduction that should invalidate everything you write after it. I am simply repeating (and explaining) arguments by some of the most connoted Historians and experts on the period, which I referenced with links on the OP. Your very poor introduction sets the tone to how seriously we should take the rest of your post. But, at this point, it damn better improve substantially. Because the outlook is not favorable for you. Not THIS nation, as I already demonstrated here... http://www.politicalforum.com/index...form-part-of-a-well-regulated-militia.589757/ So your statement is irrelevant. "Dismiss them"? Their arguments were heard, considered and voted down. Period! I didn't "dismiss" them. The framers did. Noah ridiculed framing an individual right to own weapons because framing such a "right" was considered ridiculous at the time. It would be like framing a "right" to own pants, or a right to sleep I'm still not seeing any relevant arguments, I'm afraid. I am talking about the 2nd Amendment ONLY. And at no point have I said it wasn't "needed" at the time. Unfortunately, your whole post was as devoid of content as your introduction to the post. If that's the best you can do, the impression left is that you had no real arguments and, therefore, that the arguments on the OP cannot be rebutted.
NO nation. Other than the major colonial powers like England, France, and Spain. Once again, you are trying to make circular arguments, and using yourself as your claim to accuracy. Every nation relied upon militias, even England did. The majority of their "Standing Army" was not even in England, it was in the colonies themselves. And once again, you missed the major point. You claim the "Anti-Federalists were voted down". Yet, the strongest point they insisted upon was a "Bill of Rights". WHICH IS A KEY PART OF THE CONSTITUTION! Sounds rather silly, when you claim what they said did not matter and they were "voted down", yet the thing they insisted upon the most (with a lot of their key points) was in fact included. You are trying to direct the argument, and doing a bad job of it because you do not seem to understand these and other key points. And it does not matter what you are trying to talk about. You are misrepresenting the entire process that founded the Constitution in the first place. Cherry picking things completely out of context, and trying to use those to drive your narrative. What you are trying to do over and over is to build some kind of case, but your foundation is flawed because instead of looking at the data and drawing conclusions form that, you are trying to lead the data where you want it to go.
I raised the Bogus BS with Yale's Sterling Professor of Constitutional Law at both the Alumni weekend of 2016 and when Akhil Amar was a guest of the Cincinnati Yale club a couple weeks later. He noted that no serious legal scholar takes Bogus's claims seriously and he noted that some of the most anti slave states' delegations were among the biggest supporters of a second amendment
So he's saying that there are serious legal scholars who would FLUNK a history test. I guess there might also be serious history scholars who would flunk a test about modern-day law. But I don't think they would brag about it.
Amar graduated Phi Beta Kappa at Yale, Summa cum laude and history was one of his majors. He is absolutely right-there was no fear in 1788-95 that the federal government was going to disarm "slave patrols". TO claim that arming slave patrols was the main or even a major reason for the second amendment, is idiotic revisionist history at it's worst
I was referring to the claim about James Madison. I probably misinterpreted what part you were referring to that he stated was "not taken seriously"
They weren't "destroyed by Stevens", as Stevens' words were and are both Constitutionally and legally meaningless. A dissenting opinion is from the losing block of Justices, and while Stevens did sound quite bitter about Heller, from the time the decision was announced and seemingly up until the time of his death, the fact that he wanted to solve the problem by either nullifying or changing the 2A tells me that he knows what it says, he understands the consequences of it, and he doesn't like it. Otherwise, his solutions would not require touching the Constitution. After all, the language is pretty clear. And before you want to say word one about the preamble, a militia, or membership in a militia, let me remind you that according to CURRENT Federal Law, all able-bodied men between 17 and 49 are members of the Federal Militia, whether they know it or not, and whether they like it or not. I do not know if there is an "opt out" clause, but even if there is, it would require an individual to actively opt out. As I became 50 2 years ago, and non-able-bodied about 2 years before that, I'm no longer in the militia, but it is not Federal policy to disarm former militia members, whether they aged out or became disabled.
Well, one really good reason is that the Federal Constitution, including the BoR, didn't apply to the States until just after the Civil War. Now, that makes no f-ing sense to me, as it means a State was able to violate the right of a free press, the right to peaceably assemble, even the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures, but that IS how it was. As far as it being ridiculed or laughed at, that doesn't surprise me a bit. But not in every State, as various State Constitutions incorporate a right to KBA. I'm equally sure that if such a State Constitutional Amendment were proposed in some States today, it would be equally ridiculed. But fortunately, not by enough States to change or repeal the 2A. My State (FL) incorporated that right into it's Constitution, but did leave room to regulate the manner in which individuals could carry, which is the reason we have to have a CCW to legally carry in public. But they are "shall issue", so if you aren't a criminal, don't do drugs (or at least claim you don't, it's not like they give you a piss test), and haven't had more than a certain amount of DUIs over the past X months (I'm not being intentionally vague, I just don't remember, and as I've NEVER had a DUI, it's of no relevance to me), they you will get a CCW, and no official has the power to say "No, your reason for wanting one isn't good enough." Which may be the case in all of the US as soon as next month when the decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. City of New York is published. "May issue" may be a dead concept, that is illegal. We'll know soon, but that is the decision I expect.
I don't know what that has to do with the fact that there was practically no discussion (other than what I indicated) about an individual right to own weapons. All discussions are around who should control the well regulated militia. What was ridiculed was the proposal to include a "right" to own weapons. Not the right to keep and bear arms. The latter passed. The former didn't. And the reason why was that it was considered as ridiculous to include a right to own weapons as it would be to include an amendment guaranteeing a right to wear pants. Not sure what what followed has to do with this topic.
